THE BASIC INCONSISTENCY

When looking, one may become aware of some sort of disharmony, or a nagging feeling that something is amiss. One knows that there is something awry, but just can’t put one’s finger on it. Or, there is something that simply does not make sense. This is inconsistency.

.

BASIC INCONSISTENCY

The basic inconsistency would exist when a person continually doubts his opinions and judgments, and so easily accepts the opinion and judgment of others. He then loses his freedom to the degree he DEPENDS on the opinions and judgments of another. Furthermore, he loses his freedom entirely when he starts to look THROUGH filters made up of opinions and judgments of others.

The basic inconsistency is the inability to look for oneself.

Such a person has a fear of looking and experiencing things for himself. This fear may come about when a person has been made wrong forcefully by another, or when he has been overwhelmed by general agreement against him. Such a person would not be able to function effectively in life. He would often suffer from a sense of inadequacy.

Please note that these opinions/judgments can be about oneself, which also make one feel smaller, such as.

“I am quite stupid.”

“I am not a good student.”

“I do not know how to talk sensibly.”

“I cannot speak in front of people.”

Once one fully understands how another person’s opinion or judgment came about, then one can make up one’s own mind about it. One is then no longer depending on another’s opinion/judgment. One is free to look and think for oneself.

.

REMEDY

However, this basic inconsistency may be resolved gradually as follows:

Do not suppress any feeling of inadequacy that arises. Examine it thoroughly at the first chance you get.

Look at the pictures that accompany this feeling. Don’t push them away.

Dive into feelings and emotions that arise, and experience them fully. Do not resist them.

Acknowledge all thoughts that come up. Allow yourself to become aware of them non-judgmentally.

Sooner or later the person will start becoming aware of the source of the opinions and judgments that he is using. He will also become aware of the occasions when he first accepted them.

This is what he should do:

(A) If that opinion/judgment came from another person, he should accept that person as the source of that opinion/judgment, and then look at how he responded to that opinion/judgment when he first received it.

(B) If the source of that opinion/judgment cannot be located then the person should simply accept that opinion/judgment as his own, and make sure he fully understands how he came up with it.

.

SUMMARY

This basic inconsistency should be addressed as a priority, whenever and wherever it arises. As this inconsistency is handled, a person will then be able to look from his own viewpoint, and be able to address other inconsistencies more rapidly.

(A) If that opinion/judgment came from another person, he should accept that person as the source of that opinion/judgment, and then look at how he responded to that opinion/judgment when he first received it.

I took any refernce to “mind” out because it is not a well-defined concept and readers may interpret it differently. I was looking at it in the sense of making that observation consistent with everything else that one knows. I think the word “accept” says the same thing better without ambiguity.

One may run Scientology rudiments all the time as a method for Looking. Or, one may simply follow one’s attention as the method for Looking. It is not the method that is important. What is important is the activity of Looking.

One simply looks. When inconsistencies come to view, then one looks at them. To resolve an inconsistency, one simply looks at it more closely until it resolves. Thinking may occur in the background in the form of realignment of considerations. One simply has to let this thinking happen.

Inconsistencies stand out because they are not aligned with the ground reality of a person. The ground reality is different from person to person. Therefore, what is inconsistency for one person may not be inconsistency for another.

A person, who has a very firmly grounded reality, has total certainty on what he knows. He does not doubt himself. He has his considerations well aligned in that area. However, he can recognize inconsistencies as they differ from that ground reality.

Such a person should not outright reject viewpoints and considerations that differ from this ground reality. He should make an effort to look at the inconsistencies and discuss them. It is acknowledged that it may not be easy to discuss the ground reality itself, especially when it is beyond considerations.

I think it inconsistent to conjecture about a ground reality beyond considerations since by definition a ground reality is a predominance of considerations. Differences of opinion amount to inconsistencies between ground realities, therefore, a person should better consider other’s opinions without outright rejection of the same and then scrutinize the inconsistencies between ground realities. Useful things can emerge besides who is right and who is wrong.

But there would be no language that I know of appropriate to discuss reality beyond considerations.

A “ground reality” beyond considerations may be approximated as knowing what the nature of consideration itself is, and thus, not being influenced by consideration at any level. This is just an approximation. I do not know how to describe it exactly. It would be a state where one can see a consideration for what it is, at any level.

It is not a ground reality in the usual sense, and that is why I am putting it in quotes. In this state, one is not aligning considerations because one can see through the very nature of considerations. It may be called a state where ground reality itself is looked upon as a consideration, and so nothing is taken for granted, while one is also fully aware.

Can one be sure if one has arrived at that state? I don’t know. Because considerations may have infinite number of levels like fractals, and it is hard to know when one is looking from a point that is beyond considerations. Buddha had, apparently, arrived at that state. But to me that state, itself, can be considered relative.

There may be such a stable state for life as we know it, which may be considered as “beyond consideration.” I can see the built-in inconsistency here, and that is why it is impossible to describe and to know for sure if something like that state is actually there.

I don’t know if I am able to get accross the point of a “ground reality,” which is beyond all ground realities. I can only hope.

. . . Or possibly there is a RWOT and the entirety of myself the individual exists solely as that set of filters and computational mechanism whereby I view the world. The dissolution of an invidual results in the freeing of any basic essence and the return of the same to the greater set of consciousness… if there is one.

As I understand, the common basis of RWOT (real world out there), and of self, is CONSIDERATION, so what you are saying is consistent with my view. Both spiritual and physical are aspects of a greater set of consciousness. Both spiritual and physical seem to operate in tandem. So, the dissolution of one is likely to follow the dissolution of the other. All we shall then have is the greater set of consciousness.

It makes sense to me to believe in a “greater consciousness” based on my ordinary day to day experience with other “individual” consciousnesses. I am always observing the radiance of greater consciousnesses than my own. Because I feel that I can learn and can as-is my own inconsistent considerations if I choose, the it seems that there can be greater and less filtered consciousness. Maybe the idea of single and plural is a filtered idea and has no basis above “facts.”

“total certainty on what he knows. . . . does not doubt himself.” Maybe this is the goal of spiritual improvement and would be a good goal as regards a person in his own world; however, a person living in the real world needs a bit of introspection regarding his opinions about the real world if he is going to get along with others.

My own ground reality tells me that I can manipulate and become “cause over” the way I see things. It also tells me that has nothing to do with what you can see. It also tells me that you see what you see and that has nothing to do with what I see. But in the physical world, I can act upon my own ideas and through time and effort I can make them impinge on the physical world in such a way as to “make” you see them. However, this is on such a small scale as to be laughable. In a world where all around me are trillion x 10^ trillionth horsepower machinery moving planets, etc., my own involvement is so slight as to go completely unnoticed by almost everyone except myself.

It seems that a person at that ultimate “ground reality” (let’s call it NIRVANA) would have a certain certainty and also an absence of doubt, but at the same time he would know that he doesn’t know everything. This is because “things to know” are being created all the time.

So he would not be assuming anything, and he would be looking at whatever he comes across totally newly. KHTK tries to emulate that.

The ideas of “own universe,” “another’s universe,” and “common universe” are just ideas. They are considerations too. Do you see how deep it gets? Chris, I must say that it is a pleasure taking up this subject with you. You always help me sort out my own considerations.

“Self,” “others,” “the real world,” “getting along with others,” are also considerations. Anything that one can consider is a consideration. It is an interesting argument. One is walking a very thin line that separates sanity from insanity. A sane person then is one who is a very good actor. He can knowingly be any character he wants to be. He can create the very self (or thetan, if you will). Yes. that’s funny.

For me, that kind of sanity is far, far away, but it is a good goal to have. The next goal would be to be at the same time what everyone wants you to be, and that would be the nuttiest goal ever. It would require the complete understanding of the “common universe” and that would be the end of the “common universe” for everyone. I really don’t know what I am saying here. It is all very fuzzy.

Right now, a good goal for me is to use KHTK to continue resolving whatever inconsistency I come across, as and when that happens.

Well taken, however, “what considers” is as sensible as that “something ‘not-what’ considers.” We already know that we agree on what constitutes a consideration. And we already agree that we cannot within the context of physical rise outside what is physical.

Vinaire: “LOL! But the very idea that there must be a “what” is looking for a consideration, which may not be there.”

Chris: LOL! The entire OP is based upon the consideration that a “what” consideration is present. It is the sense that there is such a thing as no-thing that can be arrived at through the process of neti neti which must be the point in doubt. It is the only thing which cannot be proven. Neti neti is a proof of the what. It simply fizzles out after a point. Possibly that is the point.

I like discussing these things with you as well. I get the sense that we come from a very similar whole-life motivation to know ourselves. It is our avocation and maybe true purpose in life regardless of how we make a living.

The Buddha once visited a small town called Kesaputta in the kingdom of Kosala. The inhabitants of his town were known by the common name Kālāma. When they heard that the Buddha was in their town, the Kālāmas paid him a visit, and told him:

‘Sir, there are some recluses and brāhmanas who visit Kesaputta. They explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others’ doctrines. Then come other recluses and brāhmanas, and they, too, in their turn, explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others’ doctrines. But, for us, Sir, we have always doubt and perplexity as to who among these venerable recluses and brāhmanas spoke the truth, and who spoke falsehood.’

Then the Buddha gave them this advice unique in the history of regilions:

‘Yes, Kālāmas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kālāmas, do not be led by reports, or tradition or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea: ‘this is our teacher’. But, O Kālāmas, when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome, and wrong, and bad, then give them up… And when you know yourselves that certain things are wholesome and good, then accept them and follow them.’